Bonding of conventional provisional resin to 3D printed resin: the role of surface treatments and type of repair resins

The impact of different surface treatments on repair bond strength of conventionally, subtractive-, and additive-manufactured denture bases

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the shear bond strength (SBS) of repair material to conventionally, subtractive-, and additive-manufactured denture bases after different surface treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Disk-shaped test specimens (N = 300) were prepared from denture base materials produced by one conventional (Procryla), one subtractive (Yamahachi), and one additive (Curo Denture) method. The test specimens were randomly divided into five groups (n = 10) and exposed to a variety of surface treatments-Group A: no surface treatment; Group B: grinding with silicon carbide paper; Group C: sandblasting; Group D: erbium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser; and Group E: plasma. Repair was performed with autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Meliodent). Surface roughness analyses were performed with a profilometer. Scanning electron microscopy was used to examine one specimen from each subgroup. SBS was evaluated on a universal testing machine. Failure types were observed under a stereomicroscope.

RESULTS

Surface roughness values were significantly higher in all test materials in Group D than in the other groups (p < 0.001). For conventional resin, the SBS values were higher in Group C than in Groups A, D, and E (p < 0.001). For CAD/CAM material, Groups B and C had significantly greater SBS increases compared with Group E (p < 0.001). For 3D material, Group D showed higher SBS than all groups except Group C (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

For SBS, sandblasting was most effective in the conventional group, whereas laser treatment was the most effective in the additive-manufactured group. For the subtractive group, surface treatments other than plasma exhibited similar SBS.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In repairing fractured prostheses, any degree of roughening suitable for the material content may provide an SBS benefit.

Repair strength of 3D-printed denture base resins: Effect of surface treatment and repair material type

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of surface treatment and repair materials on the flexural strength of repaired 3D-printed denture base resins after thermal aging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Bar-shape specimens (64 × 10 × 3.3 mm) were designed as intact (control) specimens while repair specimens were printed in sections with 2.5 mm space for repair material. Printing was performed with either ASIGA or NextDent denture base material. In each material, one group received no surface treatment, while other repair groups were subjected to one of three surface treatments: (1) monomer application, (2) aluminium oxide particles-abrasion, or (3) both methods (aluminum oxide particles-abrasion and monomer application). Pairs were fixed in a customized mold then repaired with either autopolymerizing acrylic resin or flowable composite (n = 9). Repaired specimens were incubated for 48 h at 37°C in distilled water and then subjected to thermal cycling (5000 cycles). A 3-point bending test was used to evaluate the flexural strength using a universal testing machine, and mode of failure determined followed by fractured surface analysis using scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Both resin materials showed a significant decrease in the flexural strength of repaired specimens when compared to control ones (p < 0.001). Groups with no surface treatment had significantly lower flexural strength than those with surface treatment (p < 0.001). Groups treated with monomer application, and with aluminum oxide particles abrasion plus monomer application had similar flexural strength values (p > 0.05), which were higher than those treated with aluminum oxide particles abrasion alone (p < 0.001). Specimens repaired with composite resin showed higher flexural strength than those repaired with auto-polymerized resin (p < 0.05) however, specimens treated with aluminum oxide particles abrasion alone had similar values for both repair materials (p = 0.95). Adhesive failure was dominant in all repaired groups with auto-polymerized while cohesive and mixed were dominant with composite repair groups.

CONCLUSION

Surface treatment improved the repair strength of 3D-printed denture base resins. Using composite resin for repair shows better strength with dominant cohesive and mixed failure suggesting that surface treatment and composite repair are suitable procedures for 3D-printed denture base repair.

Effects of dentin bonding agents and silanization on bond strength between 3D printed resin and composite resin

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of dentin bonding agents and silanization on the bond strength between 3D printed resin and composite resin and compare it with a conventional composite resin. 3D printed resin cylinders (PCB) and composite resin substrates (Z250) were prepared and divided into eight subgroups based on the bonding agents used (n=12). The shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine, and the failure modes were evaluated. The bond strength was found to vary significantly among the bonding agents and substrate types. Silane application did not significantly improve the bond strength. Among the bonding agents, the universal adhesives exhibited the highest bond strengths for both substrates. Compared to PCB, Z250 demonstrated stronger bonds and exhibited more cohesive failures. Further research is needed to optimize the surface treatments and resin formulations for enhanced bond strength and durability between 3D printed and composite resins.

Effect of repair and surface treatments on the strength of digitally fabricated resin-based dental prostheses: A systematic review of in vitro studies

OBJECTIVE

This review investigated the current literature pertaining to the repairability of computer-aided design-computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) milled and three-dimensional (3D) printed resin-based dental prostheses (RBDPs) as well as the appropriate surface treatment for each repair material that will produce adequate repair bond strength.

DATA/SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched for published articles involving repair of CAD-CAM RBDPs between January 2010 and June 2023. Data were collected and analyzed to reveal the surface treatment effects, suggested repair materials, and strength of repaired RBDPs.

STUDY SELECTION

Out of 164 retrieved titles, 11 studies were included, of which five investigated the repair of 3D-printed RBDPs, three investigated the repair of CAD-CAM milled resins, and three investigated both materials. Additionally, of the included studies, seven investigated denture base resins, three studied provisional restoration resins, and one evaluated 3D-printed intraoral splints. Various surface treatments were suggested, with air-abrasive methods being the most commonly used. Different materials for resin repair were proposed and used, including auto-polymerized, reline, and composite resins. For 3D-printed resins, repair with Bis-acrylic/Bis-GMA composites improved repair strength.

CONCLUSION

Surface treatments positively affected the repair strength of conventional and milled RBDPs. However, challenges remain relevant to the repair of 3D-printed resins owing to composition mismatches and fabrication techniques. Therefore, further investigation is required to develop new 3D-printed resins.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

CAD-CAM milled resins have satisfactory repair strength, which increases with surface treatment. The repair of 3D-printed resins has proven challenging even with surface treatments. However, composite resins are the materials of choice.

Effect of airborne particle abrasion treatment of two types of 3D-printing resin materials for permanent restoration materials on flexural strength

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the effects of airborne-particle abrasion (APA) on the flexural strength of two types of 3D-printing resins for permanent restoration.

METHODS

Two types of 3D printing resins (urethane dimethacrylate oligomer; UDMA, ethoxylated bisphenol-A dimethacrylate; BEMA) constituting different components were printed. The specimen surfaces were subjected to APA using 50 and 110 µm alumina particles under different pressures. The three-point flexural strength was measured for each surface treatment group, and a Weibull analysis was performed. Surface characteristics were analyzed via surface roughness measurements and scanning electron microscopy. Dynamic mechanical analysis and nano-indentation measurements were limited to the control group.

RESULTS

The three-point flexural strength according to the surface treatment was significantly lower in the UDMA group for large particle sizes and at high pressures; the BEMA group demonstrated low flexural strength for large particle sizes regardless of the pressure. After thermocycling, the flexural strengths of UDMA and BEMA significantly decreased in the group subjected to surface treatment. The Weibull modulus and characteristic strength of UDMA were higher than those of BEMA under different APA and thermocycling conditions. As the abrasion pressure and particle size increased, a porous surface formed, and the surface roughness increased. Compared with BEMA, UDMA featured a lower strain, greater strain recovery, and a negligible increase in modulus according to strain.

SIGNIFICANCE

Thus, surface roughness increased with the sandblasting particle size and pressure of the 3D-printing resin. Hence, a suitable surface treatment method to improve adhesion can be determined by considering physical property changes.

Three-Dimensional Printed Resin: Impact of Different Cleaning Protocols on Degree of Conversion and Tensile Bond Strength to a Composite Resin Using Various Adhesive Systems

The present investigation tested the effect of cleaning methods and adhesives on the tensile bond strength (TBS) of a resin-based composite luted to a temporary 3D printed resin. Substrates (n= 360) were printed using a Rapidshape D20II and cleaned with a butyldiglycol-based solution, isopropanol, or by centrifugation. Specimens were air-abraded with Al₂O₃ (mean particle size 50 µm) at 0.1 MPa followed by pretreatment (n = 30/subgroup) with: (1) Clearfil Ceramic Primer (CCP); (2) Clearfil Universal Bond (CUB); (3) Scotchbond Universal Plus (SUP) or 4. Visio.link (VL) and luted to PanaviaV5. TBS (n = 15/subgroup) was measured initially (24 h at 37 °C water) or after thermal cycling (10,000×, 5/55 °C). The degree of conversion (DC) for each cleaning method was determined prior and after air-abrasion. Univariate ANOVA followed by post-hoc Scheffé test was computed (p < 0.05). Using Ciba-Geigy tables and chi-square, failure types were analyzed. The DC values were >85% after all cleaning methods, with centrifugation showing the lowest. CCP pretreatment exhibited the lowest TBS values, with predominantly adhesive failures. The combination of CCP and centrifugation increased the TBS values (p < 0.001) compared to the chemical cleaning. CUB, SUP, and VL, regardless of cleaning, can increase the bond strength between the 3D printed resin and the conventional luting resin.

Effect of Adhesion Conditions on the Shear Bond Strength of 3D Printing Resins after Thermocycling Used for Definitive Prosthesis

Three-dimensional (3D) printing polymers such as urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) and ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacrylate (Bis-EMA) are typically used in definitive prosthesis and require surface treatments before bonding. However, surface treatment and adhesion conditions often affect long-term use. Herein, polymers were divided into Groups 1 and 2 for the UDMA and Bis-EMA components, respectively. The shear bond strength (SBS) between two types of 3D printing resins and resin cements was measured using Rely X Ultimate Cement and Rely X U200, according to adhesion conditions such as single bond universal (SBU) and airborne-particle abrasion (APA) treatments. Thermocycling was performed to evaluate the long-term stability. Sample surface changes were observed using a scanning electron microscope and surface roughness measuring instrument. The effect of interaction between the resin material and adhesion conditions on the SBS was analyzed via a two-way analysis of variance. The optimal adhesion condition for Group 1 was achieved when U200 was used after APA and SBU, whereas Group 2 was not significantly affected by the adhesion conditions. After thermocycling, the SBS significantly decreased in Group 1 without APA treatment and in the entire Group 2. Additionally, porosity, along with increased roughness, was observed on both material surfaces after APA.

Tensile bond strength of auto-polymerizing and heat-polymerizing denture reliners on the conventional and CAD-CAM denture base materials

PURPOSE

The study aimed to compare the tensile bond strength (TBS) of auto-polymerizing and heat-polymerizing denture reliners on the conventional (compression-molding and injection-molding) and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (milled and 3D-printed) denture base materials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty standard dogbone-shaped specimens were fabricated from four materials: compression-molding, injection-molding, milled, and 3D-printed denture base materials. A 3-mm cutoff was removed from each specimen at the midsection, and all specimens were reattached with either auto-polymerizing (n = 10) or heat-polymerizing (n = 10) reliner. The TBS was measured on the universal testing machine. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to examine the fractured surfaces at cross sections to determine the dominant failure mode in each group. Two-way ANOVA was used to examine the effects of denture base material and reliner on the TBS (α = 0.05). Weibull survival analysis was also used to determine the survival probability curves.

RESULTS

Heat-polymerizing reliner led to a higher TBS than the auto-polymerizing reliner, except in the compression-molding (p = 0.573) groups. Compression-molding denture base material connected with a heat-polymerizing reliner showed the highest TBS (29.8 ± 6.9 MPa), whereas 3D-printed denture base material connected with an auto-polymerizing reliner showed the lowest TBS (7.2 ± 0.9 MPa). The survival probability based on the Weibull model demonstrated that the compression-molding denture base material connected with either auto-polymerizing or heat-polymerizing reliners had the longest survival time to failure, whereas 3D-printed denture base material relined with auto-polymerizing reline material showed the shortest survival time to failure. Under the SEM, the compression-molding groups demonstrated that the failure modes were mixed but predominantly cohesive. The injection-molding and milled groups showed predominantly adhesive failures at the denture base-reline material interfaces. The dominant mode of failure in the 3D-printed groups was cohesive failures within the bonding adhesive.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the heat-polymerizing reliner led to a higher TBS than the auto-polymerizing reliner in most denture base materials, the compression-molding denture base material can achieve high TBS with both reliners. When the auto-polymerizing reliner is used with 3D-printed denture base material, clinicians should be aware of lower TBS value and possible cohesive failures, and the detachment of the reliner from the denture base.

Bond strength between temporary 3D printable resin and conventional resin composite: influence of cleaning methods and air-abrasion parameters

OBJECTIVES

The influence of different cleaning methods, air-abrasion parameters, and aging on shear bond strength (SBS) and tensile bond strength (TBS) of 3D resin luted to composite resin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine hundred resin substrates were 3D printed (D20II, Rapid Shape) and cleaned with either isopropanol (ISO), butyldiglycol-based solution (BUT), or centrifugation (CEN). After 24-h storage in 37 °C water, specimens were air-abraded (mean particle size 50 µm; n = 60) with either alumina at 0.1 MPa (AL0.1) or 0.4 MPa (AL0.4) and glass pearls at 0.1 MPa (GP0.1) and 0.4 MPa (GP0.4) or conditioned with visio.link (control) and luted with PanaviaV5. Initially (24 h, 37 °C water storage) or after aging (10,000 thermal cycles), SBS and TBS were measured, and fracture types were examined. Surface free energy (SFE) and roughness (Ra) were determined after air-abrasion. Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Kruskal-Wallis H, Mann-Whitney U, chi-square, and partial eta-squared were computed.

RESULTS

SBS measurements presented higher values than TBS (p < 0.001-0.033). Within the pretreatment groups, CEN showed the highest SBS and TBS values compared to cleaning with ISO or BUT (p < 0.001-0.040). Pretreatment with GP0.1 displayed the lowest bond strength values (p < 0.001-0.049), and mostly adhesive fractures occurred. The highest Ra values (p < 0.001) were observed for AL0.4 pretreatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment with AL0.4 and the control group mainly presented the highest bond strength values. Thermocycling had a positive effect on the bond strength.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

According to this study, 3D-printed restorations should be pretreated with AL0.4 or with visio.link before adhesive luting, regardless of their cleaning.

Repair Bond Strength of Conventionally and Digitally Fabricated Denture Base Resins to Auto-Polymerized Acrylic Resin: Surface Treatment Effects In Vitro

Denture base fracture is one of the most annoying problems for both prosthodontists and patients. Denture repair is considered to be an appropriate solution rather than fabricating a new denture. Digital denture fabrication is widely spreading nowadays. However, the repair strength of CAD-CAM milled and 3D-printed resins is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of surface treatment on the shear bond strength (SBS) of conventionally and digitally fabricated denture base resins. One l heat-polymerized (Major base20), two milled (IvoCad, AvaDent), and three 3D-printed (ASIGA, NextDent, FormLabs) denture base resins were used to fabricate 10 × 10 × 3.3 acrylic specimens (N = 180, 30/resin, n = 10). Specimens were divided into three groups according to surface treatment; no treatment (control), monomer application (MMA), or sandblasting (SB) surface treatments were performed. Repair resin was bonded to the resin surface followed by thermocycling (5000 cycles). SBS was tested using a universal testing machine where a load was applied at the resin interface (0.5 mm/min). Data were collected and analyzed using ANOVA and a post hoc Tukey test (α = 0.05). SEM was used for failure type and topography of fractured surfaces analysis. The heat-polymerized and CAD-CAM milled groups showed close SBS values without significance (p > 0.05), while the 3D-printed resin groups showed a significant decrease in SBS (p < 0.0001). SBS increased significantly with monomer application (p < 0.0001) except for the ASIGA and NextDent groups, which showed no significant difference compared to the control groups (p > 0.05). All materials with SB surface treatment showed a significant increase in SBS when compared with the controls and MMA application (p < 0.0001). Adhesive failure type was observed in the control groups, which dramatically changed to cohesive or mixed in groups with surface treatment. The SBS of 3D-printed resin was decreased when compared with the conventional and CAD-CAM milled resin. Regardless of the material type, SB and MMA applications increased the SBS of the repaired resin and SB showed high performance.

Effect of surface treatment on shear bond strength of relining material and 3D-printed denture base

PURPOSE

This study aimed to analyze the shear bond strength between the 3D-printed denture base and the chairside relining material, according to the surface treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cylindrical specimens were prepared using DENTCA Denture Base II. The experimental groups were divided into 6 (n = 10): no surface treatment (C), Tokuyama Rebase II Normal adhesive (A), sandblasting (P), sandblasting and adhesive (PA), sandblasting and silane (PS), and the Rocatec system (PPS). After bonding the chairside relining material to the center of the specimens in a cylindrical shape, they were stored in distilled water for 24 hours. Shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine, and failure mode was analyzed with a scanning electron microscope. Shear bond strength values were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance, and Tukey’s honest significant difference test was used for post-hoc analysis (P < .05).

RESULTS

Group PPS exhibited significantly higher shear bond strength than all other groups. Groups P and PA displayed significantly higher bond strengths than the control group. There were no significant differences between groups PS and A compared to the control group. Regarding the failure mode, adhesive failure occurred primarily in groups C and A, and mixed failure mainly in groups P, PA, PS, and PPS.

CONCLUSION

The shear bond strength between the 3D-printed denture base and the chairside relining material exhibited significant differences according to the surface treatment methods. It is believed that excellent adhesive strength will be obtained when the Rocatec system is applied to 3D-printed dentures in clinical practice.

Compressive and Flexural Strength of 3D-Printed and Conventional Resins Designated for Interim Fixed Dental Prostheses: An In Vitro Comparison

A provisionalization sequence is essential for obtaining a predictable final prosthetic outcome. An assessment of the mechanical behavior of interim prosthetic materials could orient clinicians towards selecting an appropriate material for each clinical case. The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the mechanical behavior—with compressive and three-point flexural tests—of certain 3D-printed and conventional resins used to obtain interim fixed dental prostheses. Four interim resin materials were investigated: two 3D-printed resins and two conventional resins (an auto-polymerized resin and a pressure/heat-cured acrylic resin). Cylindrically shaped samples (25 × 25 mm/diameter × height) were obtained for the compression tests and bar-shaped samples (80 × 20 × 5 mm/length × width × thickness) were produced for the flexural tests, observing the producers’ recommendations. The resulting 40 resin samples were subjected to mechanical tests using a universal testing machine. Additionally, a fractographic analysis of failed samples in bending was performed. The results showed that the additive manufactured samples exhibited higher elastic moduli (2.4 ± 0.02 GPa and 2.6 ± 0.18 GPa) than the conventional samples (1.3 ± 0.19 GPa and 1.3 ± 0.38 GPa), as well as a higher average bending strength (141 ± 17 MPa and 143 ± 15 MPa) when compared to the conventional samples (88 ± 10 MPa and 76 ± 7 MPa); the results also suggested that the materials were more homogenous when produced via additive manufacturing.

Biochemical Interaction between Materials Used for Interim Prosthetic Restorations and Saliva

The purpose of this study was to analyze the oxidative stress level and inflammatory status of saliva in the presence of certain materials used for obtaining interim prosthetic restorations. Four types of interim resin materials were investigated: a pressure/heat-cured acrylic resin (Superpont C+B, SpofaDental a.s Czech Republic, /KaVo Kerr Group), a milled resin (Telio CAD polymethyl methacrylate, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Liechtenstein), a 3D printed resin (NextDent C&B MFH, NextDent by 3D Systems, the Netherlands), and a pressure/heat-cured micro-filled indirect composite resin (SR Chromasit, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Liechtenstein). The disk-shaped resin samples (30 mm diameter, 2 mm high) were obtained in line with the producers' recommendations. The resulting resin specimens were incubated with saliva samples collected from twenty healthy volunteers. In order to analyze the antioxidant activity of the tested materials, certain salivary parameters were evaluated before and after incubation: uric acid, gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT), oxidative stress responsive kinase-1 (OXSR-1), and total antioxidant capacity (TAC); the salivary levels of tumor necrosis factor (TNFα) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) (inflammatory markers) were measured as well. The obtained results are overall favorable, showing that the tested materials did not cause significant changes in the salivary oxidative stress level and did not influence the inflammatory salivary status.